On 9/29/16 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I'm also on board with using this for regression testing:
>
> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] %q%a '
Committed that way, but with %m instead of %t, as discussed earlier.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL De
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > As long as we get %t and %p in there we're going to be way ahead, really.
>
> Could we get consensus on just changing the default to
>
> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] '
>
> and leaving the rest out of it?
+1 from me.
--
Álvaro Herrera
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Tom Lane 2016-09-29 <16946.1475157...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> Personally I'm also on board with using this for regression testing:
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] %q%a '
>> but I doubt it can be sold as a general-purpose default.
> I don't think it makes much sense to log onl
Re: Tom Lane 2016-09-29 <16946.1475157...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Robert Haas writes:
> > As long as we get %t and %p in there we're going to be way ahead, really.
>
> Could we get consensus on just changing the default to
>
> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] '
>
> and leaving the rest out of it? I t
Re: Peter Eisentraut 2016-09-29
<21d2719f-36ff-06d2-5856-25ed48b96...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > Christoph/Debian:
> > log_line_prefix = '%t [%p-%l] %q%u@%d '
> > Peter:
> > log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
>
> I'm aware of two existing guidelines on log line formats: syslog and
> pg
Robert Haas writes:
> As long as we get %t and %p in there we're going to be way ahead, really.
Could we get consensus on just changing the default to
log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] '
and leaving the rest out of it? I think pretty much everybody agrees
that those fields are useful, whereas
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 9/28/16 6:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Christoph/Debian:
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p-%l] %q%u@%d '
>> Peter:
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
>
> I'm aware of two existing guidelines on log line formats: syslog a
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 9/28/16 6:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Christoph/Debian:
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p-%l] %q%u@%d '
>> Peter:
>> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
> ...
> I don't know why it wants that "-1" there, and I'm actually not sure
> what the point of %l is in prac
On 9/28/16 6:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Christoph/Debian:
> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p-%l] %q%u@%d '
> Peter:
> log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
I'm aware of two existing guidelines on log line formats: syslog and
pgbadger. Syslog output looks like this:
Sep 28 00:58:56 hostna
On 9/28/16 6:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Adopting a default prefix is a different question.
A default prefix would require different settings for syslog, plain
text, and possibly some of the other variants. I'm all in favor of
figuring that out, but it needs more work.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps we should first try to get a consensus on the regression test
>> use-case.
> I thought Peter's suggestion for regression test drivers was a good one
> and I see no reason to block that. Why do you (Tom) object so strongly
> against having a dif
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I thought Peter's suggestion for regression test drivers was a good one
> and I see no reason to block that. Why do you (Tom) object so strongly
> against having a different one on buildfarm than elsewhere? I'd rather
> have buildfarm adop
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
> >>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
> >
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
>>> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
>>> bikeshed-painting discuss
Re: Robert Haas 2016-09-28
> > Well, practically anything that includes a PID and the timestamp is
> > going to be an improvement over the status quo. Just because we can't
> > all agree on what would be perfect does not mean that we can't do
> > better than what we've got now. +1 for trying.
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Christoph Berg writes:
>>> I've always been wondering why we don't set a log_line_prefix by
>>> default.
>>
>> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
>> are ni
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christoph Berg writes:
>> I've always been wondering why we don't set a log_line_prefix by
>> default.
>
> I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
> are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
> bi
Christoph Berg writes:
> I've always been wondering why we don't set a log_line_prefix by
> default.
I think the odds of getting to something that everyone would agree on
are nil, so I'm not excited about getting into that particular
bikeshed-painting discussion. Look at the amount of trouble we
Re: Fabien COELHO 2016-08-26
> So I would suggest something like the following, which is also a little bit
> more compact:
>
> log_line_prefix = '%m [%p:%l] %q%a '
>
> If you want to keep something with %a, maybe parentheses?
>
> Finally I'm wondering also whether a timestamp since the server
Hello Peter,
log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
which is modeled after the pgfouine recommendation, which is I believe a
wide-spread convention, and it also vaguely follows syslog customs.
The build farm client has
log_line_prefix = '%m [%c:%l] '
which is very similar, but the lack
On 8/16/16 2:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/10/16 9:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> %m vs %t is obviously a minor issue that I will gladly adjust, but
>> besides that I prefer to stick with my version.
>
> Updated patch with %m instead of %t. Will submit to CF.
attached
--
Peter Eisen
On 8/10/16 9:36 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> %m vs %t is obviously a minor issue that I will gladly adjust, but
> besides that I prefer to stick with my version.
Updated patch with %m instead of %t. Will submit to CF.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Deve
On 8/10/16 5:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or in short: I don't want to be seeing one prefix format in some buildfarm
> logs and a different format in others.
Sure. My patch has
log_line_prefix = '%t [%p]: [%l] %qapp=%a '
which is modeled after the pgfouine recommendation, which is I believe a
wide-
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 8/9/16 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Here is a small patch that sets log_line_prefix and application name in
>>> pg_regress and the TAP tests, to make analyzing the server log output
>>> easier.
>> How would this interact with the buildfa
On 8/9/16 12:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > Here is a small patch that sets log_line_prefix and application name in
>> > pg_regress and the TAP tests, to make analyzing the server log output
>> > easier.
> How would this interact with the buildfarm's existing policies
> on
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here is a small patch that sets log_line_prefix and application name in
> pg_regress and the TAP tests, to make analyzing the server log output
> easier.
How would this interact with the buildfarm's existing policies
on setting log_line_prefix?
Here is a small patch that sets log_line_prefix and application name in
pg_regress and the TAP tests, to make analyzing the server log output
easier.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>From 0595672e92
27 matches
Mail list logo